ON 9 NOVEMBER 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Sankey v Whitlam [1978] HCA 43; (1978) 142 CLR 1 (9 November 1978).
1300 00 2088
Tag Archives: PERSONAL INJURY
Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 28
ON 25 JULY 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Housing Commission of NSW v San Sebastian Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 28; (1978) 140 CLR 196 (25 July 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/28.html
When valuing land for the purposes of compensation for resumption, no regard is to be given to either the increase or diminution in the value of the land entirely brought about by the resumption.
See also: Pointe Gourde Quarrying and Transport Co Ltd v Sub-Intendent of Crown Lands [1947] AC 565.
1300 00 2088
Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22
ON 14 JUNE 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Bunning v Cross [1978] HCA 22; (1978) 141 CLR 54 (14 June 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/22.html
A court has the discretion to admit or exclude evidence that is improperly or illegally obtained. In exercising its discretion, the court is to weigh up the competing public requirements of (a) bringing to criminal wrongdoing to conviction and (b) protecting all individuals from unfair and unlawful treatment. The onus is on the accused to prove misconduct and justify the exclusion.
1300 00 2088
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11; (1978) 140 CLR 216 (19 April 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/140clr216.html
1300 00 2088
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11
Hornsby Building Information Centre Pty Ltd v Sydney Building Information Centre Ltd [1978] HCA 11; (1978) 140 CLR 216 (19 April 1978).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/11.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Viro v R [1978] 141 CLR 88
ON 11 APRIL 1978, the High Court of Australia delivered Viro v R [1978] HCA 9; (1978) 141 CLR 88 (11 April 1978).
The High Court held that it is no longer bound by decisions of the Privy Council in the United Kingdom. The court is “pre-eminently equipped to decide what is the law for Australia”.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1978/9.html
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45
ON 31 AUGUST 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Griffiths v Kerkemeyer [1977] HCA 45; (1977) 139 CLR 161 (31 August 1977).
At common law, a person disabled by the fault of another may recover damages for the commercial value of any necessary nursing and domestic services provided gratuitously by a friend or relative.
Legislation such as the Civil Liability Acts modify the common law, limiting the circumstances of entitlement and the amounts that may be claimed.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Driscoll v R [1977] HCA 43
ON 10 AUGUST 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Driscoll v R [1977] HCA 43; (1977) 137 CLR 517 (10 August 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/43.html
The court allowed an appeal of a murder conviction and ordered a retrial, holding that the irregularities in the admission of certain technically admissible evidence caused a miscarriage of justice.
Evidence of the discovery at the accused’s residence of a number of firearms and photographs which were not related to the alleged murder was held to be not probative and therefore inadmissible. The court held that the admission of such evidence could not be defended on “the principle of completeness” (at [533]).
Likewise, evidence of an unrelated incident concerning the use of a firearm was held to be inadmissible for the same reasons (at [535]).
An unsigned written record of interview that was not adopted by the accused (otherwise know as a “police verbal”) was held to be inadmissible, though it could be used to refresh the memories of the police officers who performed the interview(at [541]). The court acknowledged that unsigned records might be fabricated.
A court has a discretion to refuse to receive evidence that would otherwise be admissible on the grounds of unfairness, that is, when the evidence is highly prejudicial but of little value or weight (at [541]). This discretion is general and not limited to evidence of confessions.
1300 00 2088
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39
ON 7 JULY 1977, the High Court of Australia delivered Heatley v Tasmanian Racing & Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39; (1977)137 CLR 487 (7 July 1977).
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/1977/39.html
Heatley had been warned off racecourses in Tasmania without any notice by the Commission of it’s intention to do so. The court held that the Commission was bound by the rules of natural justice to give such notice (unless there was an emergency) and that Heatley should have had the opportunity to make representations before the Commission made it’s decision.
The court found that Heatley, as a member of the public, had a legitimate expectation of being admitted to the racecourse and that for the rules of natural justice to apply, the applicant only needed to have a legitimate expectation rather than a right or interest.
Sydney, Australia
1300 00 2088
Anns v Merton LBC [1977] UKHL 4
ON 12 MAY 1977, the House of Lords delivered Anns v Merton LBC [1978] AC 728.
Anns and others were tenants in a block of flats in which were discovered to have structural defects. The council of Merton were responsible for inspecting the depth of the foundations during the construction of the building. The tenants therefore sued the council and the builder for negligence.
The council were held to owe a duty of care to the tenants to ensure the foundations were of the correct depth. The case is historically significant by how it broadened the way in which the courts determined if there was a duty of care.
The court introduced a two stage test to determine the scope of the duty of care, though this test is no longer followed in Australia: see Council of the Shire of Sutherland v Heyman [1985] HCA 41; (1985) 157 CLR 424 (4 July 1985).
http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1977/4.html
1300 00 2088
Legal Helpdesk Lawyers 